XP Pro only Suports 3GB's but would...

[Wolverine690]

it be possible for someone to modify it to use more then that? I'm just curious... I don't think it is but I know nothing about programing.lol

Edit-Oops ment to post this in the Operating System thread...sorry

[David]

Fixed :>

[Wolverine690]

Fixed :>


thanks a bunch...

[roYal]

You would need to go to Windows x64 to take advantage of more memory. This requires things such as amd64 cpu. Also, there's a large lack of drivers for winxp x64. Vista will have a lot better support for x64 although x64 will require all signed drivers.

[TollhouseFrank]

well... you CAN use more than 3Gbs in WinXP. Just a simple addition to the system.ini if i'm not mistaken...

**edit**

http://support.microsoft.com/?id=888137

there is the KB article dealing with this and how to make XP see more than 3Gb.

[Wolverine690]

You would need to go to Windows x64 to take advantage of more memory. This requires things such as amd64 cpu. Also, there's a large lack of drivers for winxp x64. Vista will have a lot better support for x64 although x64 will require all signed drivers.


Yeah I am aware of that but like you said XP 64 blows b/c of the lack of drivers or the ones that are out are crap....

I was curious about Normal Windows XP Pro to be exact...


well... you CAN use more than 3Gbs in WinXP. Just a simple addition to the system.ini if i'm not mistaken...

**edit**

http://support.microsoft.com/?id=888137

there is the KB article dealing with this and how to make XP see more than 3Gb.


cool...much easier then I would have thought...will give that a look see.... :)

Honestly they should have looked way to the future with this stuff and left it open for a lot more memory then they did...Vista looks to have much greater capacity if you go with one of the 2 or 3 higher end versions but I'm sure they will be like $300+ for them :(

I won't be switching to Vista for probably till a yr or so after once they get the bugs worked out of it unless it ends up being like Windows Mill OMG what a hunk of junk that was...

[RJARRRPCGP]

x64 will require all signed drivers.

If that's the case, say goodbye to many third party software, because they aren't signed!

I hope that Microsoft gets prosecuted by the DOJ for more anti-trust stuff!:eek: :mad:

[Captain Newbie]

If that's the case, say goodbye to many third party software, because they aren't signed!

I hope that Microsoft gets prosecuted by the DOJ for more anti-trust stuff!:eek: :mad:
Treading the line here rather closely, but I'm sure someone will abuse national security to make it an excuse for *requiring* 'trusted signatures' on software.

32-bit XP has kernel memory at and above (physical) 3GB[1] -- even with the /3GB or whichever switch it is. You'll have to use x86-64 versions of XP (not recommended) or another OS to make the full use of the RAM.

[1] Subverting the Windows Kernel - some folks I don't remember

Edited-for: stupidity ;)

[soulfly1448]

The issue is also with third party programs. Most aren't able to utilize that much memory. There are many CAD and rendering programs that, with a quick recompile of the executable, that can use more than 3GB.

[Layback Bear]

If my brain is working you folks are saying that XP-PRO-SP2 can't run more that 3 gigs of ram. The reason I ask is that I'm running 3 gig and am thinking of sticking another gig in.Mother board will handle 4 gig.

[tenchi86]

http://ec.transcendusa.com/public/faqdetail.asp?Faq_No=5 Of course check your mobos limit, also just MO but unless you do rendering or editing of somekind 4GBs may be just a way to spend money and not really get much back. Running task manager in Windows even playing games I am never using more then 500mbs, which yes I know is partially because the pagefile but even with all the data it would not be a huge amount. Plus a lot of the data honestly has no need to be loaded instantly.

[stereo555]

x64 will require all signed drivers.

This is NOT true , maybe for Vista but not XP x64 . I have a few UN-signed drivers in x64 , and no problems thus far and Ive been good for about the last year with x64 .

Of course its much better to have all signed drivers , but sometimes it just impossible to do , even in XP x32 .

[Mr.Guvernment]

I hope MS makes people get signed drivers, cause that will mean these 3rd parties will have to actually follow MS guidlines and the end result of that is less crashes for us, instead of these places tossing together half assed drivers that dont work.

and i thought windows could read 3.5G's ?

[Captain Newbie]

This is NOT true , maybe for Vista but not XP x64 . I have a few UN-signed drivers in x64 , and no problems thus far and Ive been good for about the last year with x64 .

Of course its much better to have all signed drivers , but sometimes it just impossible to do , even in XP x32 .
Effective the latest patch, signed drivers are required, AFAIK, and run-time patching of the kernel is not permitted (this will generate a bugcheck exception and crash your system with a BSOD).

[stereo555]

Ok , Iam just relating my experiance here .....

On two seperate systems both with XP Pro x64 , and complete with all updates ....

1. generic "Athero wifi " nic driver = not MS signed
The Athero's driver is used on two Netgear 311T nic's as Netgear does not support x64 in anyway .

2 . Brothers MFC-5840CN-LAN printer driver = not MS signed .
The brother's AIO printer driver is for x64 , but again as stated is not MS signed .

3. Samsung 2010 laser printer = , x64 driver = not MS signed .
However , on the Samsung printer as of yesterday (8/12/06) the driver is now signed ; but before that the driver was MS unsigned and was used for the last 6 months with no problems .

Current status on both systems , very stable and no bsod ever .

Maybe Iam mis-understanding something here , but again Iam just relating my past and current experiance with x64 and drivers (signed or un-signed )

:)